( 1 ) SPECIAL leave granted.

( 2 ) ON 23-12-2000, Respondent 3 herein was suspended by the appellants herein pending disciplinary inquiry by the Chairperson of Appellant 1. However, Respondent 1 took the view that since no prior approval as regards suspension was obtained, the suspension order was illegal. Consequently, the suspension order was set aside. Against the said order passed by Respondent 1, the appellants herein filed a petition under Article 226 before the High court of Delhi. While entertaining the said petition, the High Court granted an ad interim order on 4-1-2002. Aggrieved, the Union of India preferred a letters patent appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court against grant of interim order. While the said appeal was pending, the writ petition itself was disposed of by an order dated 14-2-2002 in terms of the interim order dated 4-1-2002. However, Respondents 1 and 2 herein did not challenge the final order passed by the High Court either by seeking amendment in the pending appeal or by filing a fresh appeal. Subsequently, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by Respondents 1 and 2 herein. Against the said order passed by the High Court, the appellants are in appeal before us.

( 3 ) WHEN the matters were taken up, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the interim order dated 4-1-2002 having merged with the final order dated 14-2-2002, the appeal preferred by Respondents 1 and 2 herein was rendered infructuous, and no appeal against the final order having been filed, it was not open to the High Court to decide the appeal on merits. We find merit in the submission.

( 4 ) IT is no longer res Integra that once a writ petition is finally disposed of by the High Court, any interim order passed in pending writ petition merges with the final order. If the respondents were aggrieved by the interim order in terms of which the writ petition was disposed of, it was incumbent upon the respondents either to have amended the memo of appeal by challenging the final order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court or ought to have preferred fresh letters patent appeal against the final order passed by the single Judge. In that view of the matter, the orders under challenge are set aside. However, we permit Respondents 1 and 2 herein to move an application for amendment of the memo of appeal by challenging the final order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court. In case such an application is filed, the High Court shall condone the delay in filing the amendment application. The appeal may be decided expeditiously. We may clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

( 5 ) THE appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.